THE letter from William Golden in last Thursday’s National echoes similar calls which have been endlessly recorded in the paper for the last six months. The answer to William’s call is never – we will never see the SNP put forward an exciting, positive case for indy until they find a positive route to indy.

The previous SNP leadership led us into a boxed canyon when they took a case to the UK Supreme Court that resulted, as many of us expected, with the rejection of their case and the claim that the Scottish Government was merely the creation of the Westminster “Scotland Act” and could do nothing on constitutional matters without Westminster’s permission. The new SNP leadership has not even attempted to address this.

READ MORE: Independent Scotland would scrap two-child limit and bedroom tax

This has left the indy movement, including most SNP members, in utter confusion, and the talk of election results giving us a mandate to negotiate our independence with the UK Government just adds to the confusion.

This issue is not complex, it is very simple. There is no such thing as British sovereignty. There is the English concept of sovereignty and there is a quite distinct Scottish concept of sovereignty. This is not something new, it is well established in English and Scottish constitutional law.

Sovereignty in Scotland rests with the people, not with King Charles III, or with Westminster, or with the UK Supreme Court. It is not possible in one state to have two sources of sovereignty, so if sovereignty in Scotland rests with the Scottish people, it follows that the UK Government has no legal authority above the Scottish people and neither does any UK court.

READ MORE: Alba call for 'Scottish triple lock' on pensions after independence

The SNP conference has called for the establishment or reconvening of a constitutional convention. Such a body, if widely representative of the Scottish community, could exercise sovereign power. So if we want Scottish independence and more sovereign power for the Scottish Government, this is the institution which can provide it.

If the SNP recognise this and get sovereign authority from the convention, and particularly if they get authority to establish their own currency, they will not need to look for negotiations with the UK Government, the UK ministers will be desperate to negotiate with them, because the very idea that the Scottish economy would come out of Sterling will cause a panic in the Bank of England much more powerful than that caused by the Liz Truss policy. Sterling would be under pressure and this would force the UK Government to want talks with the Scottish Government.

If the SNP leadership just pause and think about sovereign power, they will see a clear route to indy lies in front of them, and if they recognise this and address it, they will get support from the indy grassroots again and polls show they are currently at 54% in Scotland. So the exciting way forward that William is looking for is right in front of the SNP leadership’s eyes.

Andy Anderson

I WOULD like to thank Andy Anderson for his letter in the Sunday National on November 12. In his letter he replied to the questions I had posed to him regarding a route to independence. My questions came from my ignorance of Scots and international law. I am genuinely seeking understanding of an acceptable escape route for Scotland. I suspect I am not alone.

The principal independence party, the SNP, obtained a Section 30 order which led to the 2014 referendum. Their subsequent request for a repeat Section 30 order was refused and then the Supreme Court ruled that they did not have the right to hold another referendum without agreement from Westminster. Andy maintains that this route is unnecessary because of the supremacy of the our people. I hope he is correct.

READ MORE: No benefits sanctions after Scottish independence, ministers say

The SNP have had multiple mandates and now propose a new strategy that a majority of Scottish MPs elected at the General Election is a mandate to start negotiations which would lead to independence. Good luck with that one.

I hope Andy is correct that there exists an escape route from the catch-32 circuit I previously described. I have, however, the following remaining unanswered questions:

1) If Andy is correct in his analysis, why have the SNP, with access to legal guidance, not followed this route ?

2) The UN might allow a nation to use their preferred method to demonstrate the will of their people, so how would Scotland demonstrate this?

A clear demonstration is essential for our own people as much as the international community. Can you imagine the political reaction from our Unionist parties, the risk of Ulster-type violence from some of our people, the reaction from Westminster and the UN if there was any doubt! I proposed a referendum or specific vote (such as a majority Yes at a general or Holyrood election) and Andy suggests a constitutional convention. So finally:

3) If the SNP and Believe in Scotland “have both called for a constitutional convention of some kind and such a body could exercise sovereign power in Scotland”, who is denying them this route?

Campbell Anderson